JUDGEMENT Order:- This is a revision filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Ganjam Boudh, passed in an appeal under S. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') confirming the Order of the Collector of Ganjam confiscating the kerosene oil seized from the petitioner but setting aside the imposition of fine, of Rupees 100/- in the following background: The petitioner is a wholesaler of kerosene. His business premises situate at Aska Road within Berhampur town was raided by Chatraput Civil Supplies staff on 5-7-1974 at 7 p. m. The raid revealed that the petitioner was in possession of 19,000 litres of kerosene whereas in the Stock Register it was shown to be 16,344 litres. Thus, there was an excess of about 2000 litres of kerosene oil. Accordingly a report was made and the Collector, Ganjam took action under S. 6-A of the Act and finally confiscated the kerosene and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- in as much as the petitioner appeared before him but did not show cause on several occasions. As against this order, an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge under S. 6-C of the Act and he by his order set aside the imposition of fine. It is as against that order that this revision has been filed. 2. It was contended by Mr. Mohanti, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the mandatory provision of the law, namely a notice as contemplated under S. 6-B of the Act has not been issued and therefore the proceeding is vitiated. The lower Court's record has been called for. It reveals that no notice under S. 6-B of the Act has been issued against the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the State that since the petitioner had appeared before the Collector and had filed petitions through Advocate it would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of Section 6-B and further there being no prejudice to him the order should not be interfered with. 3. The case of M/s. Ganeswar Sahu v. State of Orissa under the Essential Commodities Act came up for decision and is reported in (1977) 43 Cut LT 88. 3. The case of M/s. Ganeswar Sahu v. State of Orissa under the Essential Commodities Act came up for decision and is reported in (1977) 43 Cut LT 88. Therein it has been held:- "Undoubtedly in the scheme of S. 6-B of the Act has been implanted the rule of natural justice; the ground for initiation of the proceeding for confiscation is required to be disclosed, the delinquent is to be provided an opportunity to represent his case in writing and a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted, XX XX XX XX The proceeding is summary and since wide powers have been vested in the appropriate authority, it must have been the intention of Parliament, that the procedure prescribed has to be strictly followed. Then there is a mandate that the grounds on which action is proposed have to be disclosed, it necessarily required the appropriate details to be provided and not a bald mention to be made that there has been contravention of the statutory Order. XX XX XX XX In that case, in fact, a notice under S. 6-B of the Act had been issued. But the Court held that to be bald and so set aside the order of confiscation and remanded the case. But in the instant case, no notice under Section 6-B of the Act has at all been given. Appearance of the petitioner suo motu cannot be taken to be compliance of notice under S. 6-B of the Act nor can it be a substitution for the same. However, this point was not urged either before the Collector or the Sessions Judge and as such the orders are silent about it. All the same, this mandate of the law cannot be ignored and therefore the order is vitiated and cannot be allowed to stand. 4. I would, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and remand the case to the Collector for disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the mandate envisaged under the statute. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed.